By Ryan Tracy and Brent Kendall
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department submitted a proposal to
Congress on Wednesday to curb longstanding legal protections for
internet companies such as Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.'s Google
and Twitter Inc. and force them to shoulder more responsibility for
managing content on their sites.
The proposal advances two main goals the Trump administration
and the department outlined in June: encouraging online platforms
to actively address illicit conduct and manage content on their
sites in fair and consistent ways.
The department refined its proposal in the intervening months
based on feedback from market participants and other stakeholders
such as victims' rights groups. As a result of that process, the
department made some changes, including clarifying that internet
companies would have immunity when they take down material that
promotes violent extremism or self-harm, the official said.
President Trump is also scheduled to discuss "protecting
consumers from social media abuses" at a meeting Wednesday with
state attorneys general, according to the White House.
While the legislation is unlikely to pass during a busy and
contentious election year, Congress could take up the proposal or
others like it next year. Both Democrats and Republicans say they
want to review the legal protections internet companies enjoy,
though they have differing concerns.
Mr. Trump and GOP lawmakers have complained about what they say
are biased decisions to censor social-media posts or block certain
users. Democrats, including presidential nominee and former Vice
President Joe Biden, say platforms need to do more to curb the
spread of false information.
Both parties worry about the role of online platforms in
facilitating criminal activity, and that issue is a focus of the
Justice Department's proposal. It targets Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996, which gives internet platforms
broad latitude to police their sites and shields them from legal
liability related to users' actions, except in relatively narrow
circumstances.
The proposal would remove Section 230 legal immunity when online
platforms don't live up to certain standards. For example, they
could lose legal protections if they facilitate criminal activity
or know of unlawful conduct but don't restrict and report it. They
could also face liability if they don't spell out
content-moderation practices and follow them consistently,
including by explaining the basis for decisions to restrict users'
access.
The proposal also wouldn't confer immunity to platforms in cases
of online child exploitation and sexual abuse, terrorism or
cyberstalking. Those carve-outs are needed to allow victims to seek
redress, the department has said.
The tech industry has opposed efforts to change or repeal
Section 230, saying it has enabled internet platforms to blossom
without fear of excessive lawsuits.
"The world before Section 230 was one where platforms faced
liability for removing things like spam or profanity," the Internet
Association, a trade group representing Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc.
and others, said in June. "The threat of litigation for every
content moderation decision would hamper IA member companies'
ability to set and enforce community guidelines and quickly respond
to new challenges."
Tech companies also say they don't manage content based on
political considerations. This year social-media companies have
shifted from a hands-off approach to a more active one toward Mr.
Trump's conduct on social media. Twitter in May applied a
fact-checking notice to a post about voter fraud by the president,
a first.
Days later Twitter attached a notice to another post by Mr.
Trump about violent protests in Minneapolis in response to the
killing of George Floyd while in police custody. The post violated
the company's rules about glorifying violence, the notice said.
Facebook left untouched a similar post about the protests,
calling it political speech but later clashed with Mr. Trump when
it removed some Trump campaign ads and some of the president's
statements about the coronavirus.
Days after Twitter's move in May, Mr. Trump signed an executive
order pushing federal agencies to take a more active role in
regulating how online platforms police content. The tech industry
has said the move would exceed the agencies' authority under
current law. The Federal Communications Commission is reviewing
public comments on that initiative.
Separate from the debate over Section 230, large tech companies
are also facing scrutiny in Washington over their market power. The
Trump administration is pursuing antitrust investigations into
Google and Facebook, which could result in lawsuits this year.
The administration's moves to target Section 230 don't have
direct consequences for social-media companies in the near term.
However, the actions raise the odds of a future crackdown while
also casting Mr. Trump as a defender of conservatives against tech
firms that Republicans say operate with a liberal bias.
"Online censorship goes far beyond the issue of free speech.
It's also one of protecting consumers and ensuring they are
informed of their rights and resources to fight back under the
law," White House spokesman Judd Deere said before the president's
Wednesday meeting with Republican state attorneys general. "State
attorneys general are on the front lines of this issue, and
President Trump wants to hear their perspectives."
Members of Congress have proposed their own ideas to narrow tech
firms' legal immunity. A bill introduced earlier this month by
three influential Republican senators seeks to restrict companies
from claiming immunity because they deemed content "objectionable,"
requiring them to instead meet a more specific standard. The
Justice Department's proposal has a similar provision.
Another bipartisan proposal, termed the "EARN IT Act," could
open the companies up to lawsuits from survivors of online abuse by
giving the victims legal recourse if the companies don't "earn"
Section 230 immunity by following reasonable practices for dealing
with harmful content.
Democrats, for their part, say GOP accusations of political bias
by tech companies are unfounded, pointing out that conservative
content is widely available on Facebook, Twitter, and other
platforms. But they agree Section 230 needs review, and top
Democrats on Capitol Hill have said they plan to discuss the matter
in the coming months.
Mr. Biden called in January for revoking Section 230 altogether,
though he hasn't outlined if or how he would replace it.
Alex Leary contributed to this article.
Write to Ryan Tracy at ryan.tracy@wsj.com and Brent Kendall at
brent.kendall@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
September 23, 2020 12:54 ET (16:54 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024